Advocates:
A.N.SINHA, A.S.R.CHARI, A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.J.JOSHI, B.R.L.Iyengar, B.SEN, BALBHADRA PRASAD SINGH, G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, GURCHARAN SINGH, HARBANS SINGH, J.B.DADACHAN, K.M.Munshi, L.K.JHA, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.NAMBIYAR, N.C.CHATTERJI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, R.NATNAIK, R.PATTANAIK, RAJINDAR NARAIN, Rameshwar Nath, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, S.P.SINHA, S.S.SHUKLA, S.VISHWANATHAN

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized in a clear and organized manner:

1. Vires of the Act and Decision of Wage Board: The petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, and the validity of the Wage Board’s decision. The primary contention was that the Act and the Wage Board’s decision infringed upon fundamental rights, particularly under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 14, and 32 of the Constitution.

2. History and Context of Legislation: The development of the newspaper industry and the need for regulation of working conditions for journalists led to the enactment of the Act. The industry evolved from individual newspapers to profit-oriented enterprises, necessitating regulation of wages, hours, and conditions to protect working journalists.

3. Principles of Wage Fixation: The decision-making process for fixing wages involves principles such as the concept of living wages, fair wages, and minimum wages, with emphasis on the capacity of the industry to pay, the standard of living, and the economic conditions of different regions.

4. Machinery for Wage Fixation: Wage fixing is typically carried out by wage boards or similar bodies, which are usually composed of representatives of employers, employees, and independent members. These bodies operate with procedures that should ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to principles of natural justice, including the opportunity to be heard and the requirement to give reasons for decisions.

5. Nature of Functions of Wage Boards: The functions of wage boards are generally considered quasi-judicial or administrative. The determination of wages involves collecting data, hearing evidence, and making decisions that could have legislative or judicial character depending on how the process is structured and whether decisions are subject to judicial review.

6. Procedural Safeguards: Proper safeguards include the requirement for reasons to be given for decisions, fair procedures, and opportunities for affected parties to be heard. The absence of reasons or arbitrary procedures could invalidate decisions, but the law permits discretion in the procedure, provided natural justice principles are observed.

7. Classification and Grouping of Establishments: The classification of newspapers based on gross revenue, and the grouping into chains or multiple units, are considered legitimate, provided they are rational and not arbitrary. The basis of classification should be relevant to the purpose of wage fixation.

8. Assessment of Industry’s Capacity to Pay: The decision of the Wage Board must consider the capacity of the industry to pay, which includes analyzing financial data such as profit and loss statements, circulation figures, advertisement revenue, and overall economic health of the industry. The Board’s failure to properly evaluate this capacity renders its decision ultra vires.

9. Retrospective Operation and Duration of Fixation: The law permits retrospective fixing of wages and setting periods for wage fixation, but these must be justified. The decision to fix wages for a period of three years, or to have review mechanisms, should be based on rational considerations.

10. Impacts on Business and Fundamental Rights: The heavy financial burdens imposed by the Act and the Wage Board’s decisions could threaten the viability of newspaper establishments, potentially infringing on their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). However, such restrictions are permissible if they are reasonable and in the interest of public welfare, which was contested.

11. Discrimination and Classification: The classification of working journalists as a separate group for the purpose of benefits and wage fixation is justified as it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the objective of improving their conditions. The law does not violate the principle of equality under Article 14.

12. Fundamental Rights and Restrictions: The law’s restrictions are valid if they are reasonable and serve a legitimate public interest. The right to freedom of speech and the press is fundamental, but it can be subjected to restrictions that are reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in pursuit of public order, morality, or other permissible interests.

13. Right to Approach the Court: The right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 is preserved, and the law does not deny the petitioners the ability to seek judicial review. The absence of a requirement for reasons in the decision of the Wage Board does not violate the petitioners’ rights, as the Board is given discretion on whether to give reasons.

14. Validity of the Decision: The decision of the Wage Board was found to be invalid because it did not properly consider the capacity of the industry to pay, lacked sufficient procedural safeguards, and was based on incomplete data. Consequently, the decision was declared ultra vires and void.

15. Severability of Provisions: The law’s provisions that are unconstitutional, specifically relating to certain benefits, can be struck down without invalidating the entire Act, which remains valid for other purposes.

16. Conclusion: The petitions were allowed, the Act’s provisions were upheld except for the specific clause found unconstitutional, and the decisions of the Wage Board were declared illegal and void. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

These points collectively summarize the legal principles, procedural considerations, and constitutional issues discussed in the document.